New digiPro asks: why buy D1X over D100? (help)

[peter_wohlsen]

I am an artist/photographer. In art school I shot an N70 and scanned my

negs. Since school I've been working as a photographer for non-profits and

am looking ot expand in order to pay the bills, though art photography is still

my goal.

 

I've been using a prosumer point and shoot for the last year and am ready to

move to the big leagues. My question is - why would I choose the D1X over

the D100 - besides the fact that the true pros use it.

 

Advantages I see of D1X - rugged body, firewire, but worth the $2500 xtra? Is

there a huge speed difference (specifically between focusing and actually

capturing the image (the annoying lagtime on my G2). If the rugged body is

the main difference, i could buy 2 D100's and a new lens for the price. And

the D100 has higher resolution! (Does this equal higher quality prints? or are

the CCD's of different quality?)

 

My uses will be diverse - being new to the field, I'm not sure where my path

leads. My art photography is wilderness based - the lighter camera the better,

but the more rugged the better, too (being stuffed into backpacks, scampering

over boulders, etc) Ultimately - image quality is priority, and now to throw a

wrench in it all, I'm reading the Fuji S2 produces the best images (but oh

those 6 batteries!)

 

Any advice helps greatly! I can justify and afford the cost of either, but at the

level I'm at, this is a HUGE investment and commitment, but also a necessary

one. Sell me on the D1X if it really will change my life, otherwise help me

save my hard-earned $$$ and feel good about it!

 

THANKS IN ADVANCE

[jersey_emt]

The D1X has faster autofocus and frame capture rate. It is loosely based on the F100, while the D100 is loosely based on the N80. If you're happy with the autofocus speed of the N70, you should be happy with the D100.

 

About the quality of the prints: this will get mixed answers from different people. You need to look at prints made from both cameras at different sizes and see for yourself. Some people say that the D100 makes film-quality 11x14's, while others will not enlarge past 5x7.

[john_bald]

The D100 will not meter with any Nikon/Nikkor manual focus lenses, nor the AF-S lenses. The D1X will meter with all (nearly all) Nikkors.

[david cunningham]

Here's the list of compatoble lenses for the D100 taken from the Nikon website. It doesn't make sense that it's not compatible with the AF-S lenses.

 

Compatible Lenses: 1) D-type/G-type AF Nikkor: All functions possible; 2) P-type Manual-Focus Nikkor: All functions except autofocus possible: 3) AF Nikkor other than D-type/G-type: All functions possible except 3D Matrix Metering; 4) AI-P Nikkor: All functions except 3D Matrix Metering and autofocus possible; 5) Non-CPU: Usable in [M] mode (camera�s built-in exposure meter does not work). Electronic Rangefinder usable with lens with maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster; IX-Nikkors cannot be used

[john_bald]

The D100 will not meter with any Nikon/Nikkor manual focus lenses, nor the AF-S lenses.</p>

<p><i>It doesn't make sense that it's not compatible with the AF-S lenses.</i>

 

<p>Right, sorry about that. It's the MF lenses that won't meter on the D100. Alas, the MFs can be used in aperture-priority mode on the D1's.

[NullMcNullkins]

"The D100 will not meter with any Nikon/Nikkor ...nor the AF-S lenses"

 

What?? That doesn't make sense. The N80 will, I don't see why the D100 wouldn't.

 

FWIW, I always thought the D1x was based on the F5, not the F100.

[NullMcNullkins]

Oops. I think I misread John's second post. Sorry.

[ken_mai]

The D1x is a hybrid of F5 and F100 parts (plus all of the digital imaging parts). It has the F5 color matrix meter and the CAM1300 AF module used by both the F5 and F100. The camera top-deck looks like it was taken from a F100. And the viewfinder screen is the same as the F100. The body itself looks similar to an F5. I don't know whether the D1x got the slightly more powerful F5 AF motors or the ones from the F100.

[moses_sparks]

Peter,

 

I'm wrestling with the same issues myself, having put off a digital conversion as long as I can (more due to the inadequacies of the available cameras than anything else) but the market is forcing me to adopt a digital solution very soon.

 

The people I have spoken with are accustomed to dealing with professional photographers, and they are unanimous in recommending the D1x or D1h over the D100 for my applications.

 

The reasons are speed, workflow, ISO and flash sync speeds (more on that in a moment) ruggedness, and the quality of the CCD.

 

I've seen sample prints from all 3, and the D1 photos do indeed look better to me.

 

The D100's minimum ISO of 200, and flash sync at 1/180th would be problematic for me because I do so much outdoor work wth fill flash. The D1x or h with their sync speed of 1/500th have a huge advantage there.

 

The viewfinder and focus indicators on the D1x look just like my F100's and are a joy to use, the D100 finder is smaller, darker, and I had trouble seeing the focus indicators, which darken, rather than light up in red like the D1x.

 

If you haven't held these cameras there's a big difference there too. The D100 sort of feels like a toy to me, whereas the D1x is so solid and well balanced it just feels indestructible.

 

I tried the Fuji S2 also and HATED the feel of that camera. The all plastic exterior is so slippery I literally could not hang on to it, and it feels like a $300 entry level SLR to me.

 

You should spend some time handling these different models and see what feels like the right fit for you, and then rent them if you can and print some test shots.

 

The D1x output looks a lot better right out of the camera to me, and since I'm not anxious to increase the amount of time I spend hunched in front of a computer (too much already!) I like that aspect as well.

 

Good luck to you.

[duncan_mcmorrin2]

Peter,

these were pretty much the reasons I chose the D1x, too. Those and the new upgrades of firmware, RAM and the imminent advent of Capture 3.5 make the D1x an entirely different beast.

 

Bests, Duncan

[ShunCheung]

The main advantage of the D1x is faster AF, faster frame rate and the larger buffer, especially with the RAM upgrade. The D1x is more rugged, but as long as you use you camera carefully, the D100 will hold up ok. DSLRs are improving rapidly. You pretty much have to upgrade your camera in a few years anyway, just like your PC. Unlike the film cameras from 20 years ago, these DSLRs are not really for the very long term. In other words, there is no point to get something too rugged anyway. If you cannot accept the fact that your $2000 or $4000 "investment" will depreciate rapidly, you are probably not ready for DSLRs.

 

The D1x is a 1.5-old design and people are crying for its successor already (remember there was only 1.5 years between the D1 and D1x/h). Unless you have very good reasons or money is not an issue at all, I think it is unwise to spend over $4000 on a camera that will soon become "the old model."

 

The D100 is at least a newer model and when your "investment" is $2000 to begin with, that is pretty much the maximum amount you can lose from depreciation. It still hurts, of course, but not as bad.

[dayton_p._strickland1]

Peter, have you made a decision yet? I have used the Canon G-2

professionally since March and the D100 since early November.

I work as a photojournalist and also own and use a Leica M-6

and Olympus XA. As an old friend once said, "It ain't the arrows,

but the Indian that hits the target."

I have taken photos with the Canon G2 that have been blown up

to broadsheet sized photos with incredible detail and of course

the incredible depth of field you get from those small sensors. I

found the G2 frustrating only in capturing quick moving subjects

or expressions. For art work or landscapes I can't think of a

better camera for the money except the G3 which has made

many improvements. The D100 is a very capable camera. It has

exceptional battery life and the digital noise levels all the way up

to 3,200 ISO are unbelieveable. Out of the camera the images

have a tendency to look a tad soft to some people. Depending on

the ISO setting I will go into Photoshop and knock out any digital

noise in the blue channel and sharpen the entire image in RGB

to about 100 to 200 in unsharp mask with a radius of 1 and

threshold of 4. I have taken nighttime football games in the rain

available light that I still marvel at. As for ruggedness, last week I

got creamed on the sidelines at the Georgia Dome and the

camera kept on ticking although I have a hell of a

helmet-induced bruise on the side of calf below the knee. If you

need really fast autofocus I would buy the Canon EOS-1D. If you

are married to Nikon and need really fast autofocus and fast

frames per second then the D1H is your choice. If you are

shooting art and people and don't throw the thing to the ground

just for the hell of it I would suggest the D100. So far it seems

plenty rugged, has incredible battery life and is very lightweight

which means you will have a tendency to use it more when you

might leave a heavier beast behind. As for the 1/180th shutter

synch speed for flash, it is a bit of a problem, but if you need a

higher speed than that because of the light try a reflector instead

of flash. Hope this rambling helps.